Home | About | Donate

Endless Procedural Abuses Show Julian Assange Case Was Never About Law

Endless Procedural Abuses Show Julian Assange Case Was Never About Law

Jonathan Cook

It is astonishing how often one still hears well-informed, otherwise reasonable people say about Julian Assange: “But he ran away from Swedish rape charges by hiding in Ecuador’s embassy in London.”

That short sentence includes at least three factual errors. In fact, to repeat it, as so many people do, you would need to have been hiding under a rock for the past decade – or, amounting to much the same thing, been relying on the corporate media for your information about Assange, including from supposedly liberal outlets such as the Guardian and the BBC.


By not playing by the rules of corporate media Assange has guaranteed his place as a major, if not the most significant, target of opportunity of them. Feckless at best, realistically duplicitous, and who knows what at worst, corporate media have come to completely perform the tasks of Propaganda as laid out by Edward Bernays (1928). According to Thomas Jefferson, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers , or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” I am wholly with the author of the Declaration of Independence on this. I look forward to seeing his Tree of Liberty properly watered.


As Glenn Greenwald commented on these pages recently, it is really difficult for any progressive to ‘support’ Assange because of his murky ties to Trump. On the other hand, he is being prosecuted not for Russia but for publishing government secrets whistle blowers obtained, the very essence of freedom of the press the Framers intended to protect. What to do?

I for one plan to sit tight and let the law takes its course, since the Supreme Court decision in the Pentagon Papers case is crystal clear and as yet unchallenged. When the Assange case goes to the Supreme Court, we can hope that a thorough house cleaning would have taken place in the Justice Department, under a Bernie/Warren administration.

What I don’t understand at all, is why progressives don’t start a boycott on corporate news. Some of my friends who are fairly progressive would never, ever consider not watching their favorite propaganda broadcast. Why? I ask. They say they like the newscasters, and what to hear what they have to say. Well, considering that most people know they are being fed a pile of horse shit, I can’t figure out why they have acquired such a coprophagic habit. I strongly suggest that everyone with a brain stop watching the garbage, and stop giving the creepy corporate spin meisters ad dollars. Starve the beast if you want to weaken it. That especially includes Rachel “Mad Dog” Maddow who sounds suspiciously like an NSA asset.


Psy-ops and propaganda are powerful tools. If these tools weren’t successful, they wouldn’t be deployed.


“Corprophagic” There I fixed it. Given there’s no difference between the two. But wait, I’m wrong. Many animals require coprophagism for survival. The opposite is true of corprophagy.

1 Like

‘it is really difficult for any progressive to ‘support’ Assange because of his murky ties to Trump’

You’re repeating talking point of the character assassination game bro. Assange does not have ‘ties’ to Trump.

And what do you mean by ‘ties’? Did he & Trump have a sit down meeting?

Did one give orders to the other?

Are they cousins?

Are they kissin’ cousins?

Do they both belong to the Rotary Club or the Knights of Columbus?

All this new McCarthyism BS…saying so & so is ‘bad’ because they have ‘ties’ to some media-made boogie-man.

And it comes down to trying to cover up the real issue by getting onto this tangent where Assange is supposedly a ‘bad’ person, & therefore the totalitarianist assault on him is justifiable.

Why do you feel the need to be part of the New McCarthyism?


Reports that Assange is too ill to have a normal conversation with his lawyer:


This is an excellent article by Cook. One of the best, if not the best, on this case, as the way he has been treated by international state actors, speaks more than anything else about this case.

And in this framework, and based on the latest on his health, I dread that he will not be able to make it to any public courts…by design rather than chance.


This misrepresents any of the statements by Greenwald that I have read over the past nine years that Assange has been in prominence.

1 Like

Thanks and kudos to Jonathan Cook and CD for so informative and accurate an article amid the nearly decade-long sea of poppycock over this case.


The problem with using the Ellsberg Pentagon Papers case as precedent is that the reason Ellsberg got off is because Nixon queered the case by having his “Plumbers” break into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office looking for dirt on him. That was so blatant that the judge in the case had no choice but to throw the whole case out, with prejudice, so he could not be charged again. No such issues that we know of might save Assange from life in the Florence, CO supermax prison with the Unibomber and the shoe bomber, and any number of Mafia Dons.

1 Like

“I for one plan to sit tight and let the law take it’s course,…”
Assange will be dead long before any case works it’s way to the SC.


Hi genededs:
And weirdly, it seems like America, Sweden and the UK are acting just like Nixon did, with all his blatant actions and the actions of these supposed nations which are said to have a rule of law.
Who will want to have anything to do with these 3 nations as they seem to make up things as they go along, and Washington Post and The New York Times, and all the other BIG supposedly titans of journalism--------people don’t believe you or your news. I am amazed at all of these supposed defenders of the press, when your own actions show that Freedom of the Press means nothing to any of you at all!


To show how far right the so called Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has gone, they and their cousin Jacobin Magazine, have said nothing, absolutely zip, about Assange and the attack on the free press. Even the NYTimes, WaPo and WSJ, all ready to hang Assange from the yardarm for exposing US war crimes, have come out against the use of the Espionage Act against a publisher. Democratic Socialist my butt.


Jonathan Cook’s exposure of the faux liberal Guardian is spot on.

A few years ago, I was impressed enough with its coverage to consider responding to its numerous appeals for money. Then I began to see patterns in its obsessive demonization of Venezuela’s government, echoed last year in dishonest reporting of the uprising in Nicaragua. A staunch (though with some dissent) defender of the criminal government of Israel, The Guardian lost all credibility in its consistent attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, particularly the hyper-exaggerated accusations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. (Did no one at the paper watch Al Jazeera’s explosive documentary on Israeli manipulations in British politics?) Its treatment of Assange is shameful.

Perhaps The Guardian’s increasing restriction of online comment to uncontroversial topics is a sign that its hypocrisy is well understood inside its kraal. I still read it online (unfortunately, no medium with comparable breadth is better), but am immune to its pleas for money.

1 Like

Rachael Madcow…she’s a disease that attacks the central nervous system by spreading neo-McCarthy prions throughout the news system.


Right. What did Assange do? He exposed war crimes of the US empire. Where’s the DSA on imperialism?

A mixed bag at best: they seem to oppose Trumps actions against Venezuela, but what about US’s proxy and direct war against Syria since 2011 (creating the biggest refugee crisis since WWII)? Either silent or vague. And they are backing Mr “F-35” Sanders “100%” for 2020. While Bernie’s no neocon, he’s hardly an anti-imperialist.
It seems definitional to me: you can’t be a socialist and support imperialism.


I just had to laugh at this article. Who in their right mind would think that Assange in front of ANY judge in the US has something to do with ‘letting the law take its course.’ There is no law in this country, just payoffs and bribery (called political contributions) and one law for you and…they don’t need no stinking laws.

Since Reagan, the last 38 years has seen nearly the entire judiciary go neoliberal regardless of the face of the corporate party in power appointing them. I mean, Anthony Kennedy was no liberal!! He was a good little Reagan Republican not even close to what was a liberal in 1979 much less 1969!! And now he is revered and considered a left winger???

When all the judges are neoliberal corporate Fascists, just who is left to ‘administer’ justice? Just who can one appeal to? Nobody. As Hitler supposedly once said, appoint the judges and everything you do is legal… That’s where we are at.

You can’t vote out tyranny. And when those that control tyranny keep those that are under tyranny fighting one another…

The odds are this isn’t going to end well, either. Doesn’t seem like there is much going on around this planet that will…